Why liberal/Dems fear socialism itself, part 1

To continue the thread on why there is so much fear of socialism and/or the socialist label by the liberal/Democrats, you have to truly understand what socialism means to those that espouse its implementation.

 

First, the best way to understand socialism is to study what happens when a country becomes socialistic. Fortunately we have many examples in the European community such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland that have moved completely socialistic, and partially socialized countries such as the UK, France, and Germany.

 

Let's investigate the Scandinavian countries as a path towards understanding the pathology of socialism. Having visited all three countries several times, I can give you first hand experiences along with precursory perspectives about what has happened in these countries. These three countries will be a bit different from the other three less mature socialist states in that the Scandinavian countries began as monarchies and then moved towards socialist states while the UK, France, and Germany began as democracies before crawling toward socialism.

 

I will simplify our investigations by asking 3 self-evident questions about the mature socialist countries:

1. What is the current, effective tax rate of the country?

2. What major role in the world do these country maintain?

3. What major human advances have come from these countries?

In all 3 cases, the answers can be discovered via a short Google exercise:

 

       HIGH, 3rd World, and None

 

The reason is self-evident: socialism removes most of the motivation for individual achievement since what a person or company creates is appropriated by the government and redistributed to either itself or to others not involved in the initial creation process. Without such motivation individuals or organizations lack the day by day passion to create or innovate: survival is just good enough and satisfactory.

 

Finally, I will grant that in these mature socialistic countries there is little extreme poverty, but there is also little extreme achievement or advancement of the human condition. The conclusion can be that:

 

      Socialism brings contented stagnation.

 

Why expend energy to innovate or achieve if there is little to show for such expenditure?